Replies to post #423822 on Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Large Green]

drugby, thank you very much for our continued due diligence, fact finding and legal interpretation of such important and related case issues. The investors on the right side of this are starting to see the sunlight while the others hole gets much more desperate, deeper and very dark!

[DPincus]

Dr. // Now that IS an interesting ruling!

I am not expert on the relevance it does or does not bear upon escrow prospects, but I am hoping that some of the better legal minds and especially those who are most prudent and cautious about escrow returns will weigh in: -- Dion

=

“The court has found that none of these Schedules includes the Anchor claim. Therefore, the court can only conclude that the FDIC assented to the transfer

Plaintiff is entitled to additional mitigation costs of $63,191,000. In sum, the total Anchor is entitled to recover, before the addition of the gross-up figure, is $419,645,910.91. The court - 39 -
also finds that $227.1 million of these damages are subject to a tax gross-up. The parties are hereby directed to meet to determine the appropriate calculation for the final gross-up rate, and submit a status report to the court by Friday, June 19, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Lawrence J. Block
Lawrence J. Block
Judge “

[dmceng]

drrugby,

I remember the DIME attorney was excellent but had to go by the decision of JMW. What was the attorney's name? Glad it worked out for the DIME holders. I was going to pick up some DIMEQ but never did!lol

Thanks for the opinions. Keep them coming as we move down the stretch here.

Take Care
David

[fsshon]

E. Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss
To understand defendant’s motion to dismiss, a brief account of Anchor’s ownership history is in order. On January 13, 1995—the very day on which Anchor filed the instant case— Anchor merged with Dime Savings Bank of New York (“Dime”), and assumed the latter’s name.
Anchor III at 128-29. In 2002, Dime merged with Washington Mutual Bank (“WMB”) and its holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc., in a “merger of equals.” See Def.’s Mot. Dismiss,
ECF No. 329, at 2; Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 335, at 2. WMB later went on to become the largest thrift in American history.
Following this merger, ownership of the Anchor litigation passed on to
WMB. On July 16, 2008, the court awarded Anchor a judgment of approximately $356 million, after a five-week trial on the damages issues. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on September 8,
2008, and plaintiff filed a cross-appeal on September 22, 2008.

On September 25, 2008, OTS responded to this crisis by seizing WMB and appointing the FDIC as receiver. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 329, at 2. That same day, the FDIC sold substantially all of WMB’s assets to JPMC under the terms of a whole bank purchase and
assumption (“P&A”) agreement.12 Id. at 3. A whole bank P&A is the preferred form of bank resolution by the FDIC.13
Under this approach, the FDIC sells “all assets of the failed institution
on an ‘as is,’ discounted basis (with no guarantees).”14 Nonetheless, even in a whole bank P&A Agreement, “[s]ome categories of assets never pass to the acquirer,” including “claims against
former directors and officers, claims under bankers blanket bonds and director and officer insurance policies, prepaid assessments, and tax receivables.”

13 FDIC Resolutions Handbook, chapter 3, at 27,
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/reshandbook/ch3pas.pdf.
The FDIC prefers this method of resolution for three reasons: (1) loan customers could continue
to be served locally by the acquiring institution; (2) it minimizes the FDIC’s cash outlay, requiring
the FDIC to render no further financial support to the failed bank; and (3) it reduces the amount of
assets held by the FDIC for liquidation. Id. at 28.

The question should be.. "Who gets the proceeds from the ruling?

Who pays it? Feds?

Need to read POR7.

[MasterBlastr]

Thanks DrR for the gleaning of Block's order. I cannot even hold a candle to the level of DD you can provide. All I hear is a deep 'clank' in the machinery, and I know its good.

[tzebedee]

Nice find!! Thankyou

[W3Research]

DrR, When you mention, in so many words, that "They cannot transfer the Assets." could you be a little more specific about which Assets? And, what would be the benefit to WMIH-WMILT? And, how might the process of straightening out this situation unfold? TIA.

[popcorn202]

Drug by the judge ruled against the Defendent that the FDIC was legally able to transfer the " Dimeq case" to JPM. How is this good for for escrow? Thanks for posting this.

[invest1980]

What am I missing here? In the BK, DIME was deemed to be equity and received shares in WMIH at a certain exchange rate.
the Anchorage litigation Value was than transferred to JPM. As the Anchor litigation progressed, the government, as defendant, tried to argue that JPM was not a party in interest and tried to get the case thrown out, and failed per Judge Blacks ruling.

I seem to recall that after Walrath made her ruling, one of the original authors of the DIME LTIs made a late filing that the DIME LTIs were never intended to be equity, but ruling had already been made (more JPM stolen goods). So it seems to me that JPM will be getting all that money.

[philipmax]

Dr rugby, thanks for the quote. I consider myself pretty well acquainted with the English language. Yet, although, I carefully read Judge Block's decision, I must confess, it eludes my comprehension.
Yes, I get the point that the Anchor litigation survived the BK intact thru the prior transfer to JPM by the FDIC. But, this is where I lose the good Judge; if, as he decided, the Anchor Litigation survived the 2008 turmoil
intact, (he earlier referred to it as one of the Windsor cases), then, surely the LTWs play an important role in splitting the Award monies with JPM. Yet, the LTWs are never mentioned in his decision.
Even in Mary Walrath's final decree, (quoted on elsewhere on this Board),she acknowledges that, the "release" that she refers to, applies only to those electing to exchange their DIMEQ shares for WMHI stock (at a ratio of 8.4 DIMEQ for each WMHI). She was very clear to add that those NOT TENDERING their DIMEQ are free to seek equity from JPM. I understood even then, that JPM would not give up without a trial.
Let us all remember that Walrath's Court allowed the LTWs to be the subject of WMI's BK trial, even though, she very well knew that, at the time, JPM owned the Anchor Litigation outright, and that she therefore was holding a completely SHAM Court. She had no jurisdiction in dispensing with the rights of the LTWs. They were/are NOT assets belonging to the WAMU/WMI Estate.

[hotmeat]

"The court has found that none of these Schedules includes the Anchor claim. Therefore, the court can only conclude that the FDIC assented to the transfer

Plaintiff is entitled to additional mitigation costs of $63,191,000. In sum, the total Anchor is entitled to recover, before the addition of the gross-up figure, is $419,645,910.91. The court also finds that $227.1 million of these damages are subject to a tax gross-up. The parties are hereby directed to meet to determine the appropriate calculation for the final gross-up rate, and submit a status report to the court by Friday, June 19, 2015."


It's difficult not to gather that the court agreed with the FDIC and JPMC gets the proceeds of the Anchor litigation as per the P&AA.

[fsshon]

DR. L2.. Check out these small 100 share trades at 2.938...they are workung really hard to keep this under $3.

http://cdn1.boardpost.net/quote.php